Radio controlled Target ship

[ledeper]

RC Target ship, Esc BB laid down 1919

Displacement:
   10.110 t light; 10.325 t standard; 10.719 t normal; 11.035 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   391,67 ft / 388,78 ft x 82,02 ft x 18,04 ft (normal load)
   119,38 m / 118,50 m x 25,00 m  x 5,50 m

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   13,8" / 350 mm   311,02 ft / 94,80 m   10,86 ft / 3,31 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
   Upper:   4,92" / 125 mm   311,02 ft / 94,80 m   8,01 ft / 2,44 m
     Main Belt covers 123 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      1,97" / 50 mm   311,02 ft / 94,80 m   17,09 ft / 5,21 m

   - Armour deck: 7,09" / 180 mm, Conning tower: 11,81" / 300 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 23.241 shp / 17.337 Kw = 21,00 kts
   Range 2.500nm at 14,00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 710 tons

Complement:
   526 - 684

Cost:
   £1,024 million / $4,097 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 0 tons, 0,0 %
   Armour: 6.233 tons, 58,1 %
      - Belts: 2.514 tons, 23,5 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 387 tons, 3,6 %
      - Armament: 0 tons, 0,0 %
      - Armour Deck: 3.208 tons, 29,9 %
      - Conning Tower: 124 tons, 1,2 %
   Machinery: 825 tons, 7,7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2.702 tons, 25,2 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 609 tons, 5,7 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 350 tons, 3,3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     40.085 lbs / 18.182 Kg = 371,2 x 6 " / 152 mm shells or 13,0 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,19
   Metacentric height 5,1 ft / 1,6 m
   Roll period: 15,2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 90 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,00
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1,16

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0,652
   Length to Beam Ratio: 4,74 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19,72 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 58 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 77
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10,00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0,00 ft / 0,00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      16,40 ft / 5,00 m
      - Forecastle (5 %):   16,40 ft / 5,00 m
      - Mid (80 %):      16,40 ft / 5,00 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   16,40 ft / 5,00 m
      - Stern:      16,40 ft / 5,00 m
      - Average freeboard:   16,40 ft / 5,00 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 39,9 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 145,4 %
   Waterplane Area: 24.473 Square feet or 2.274 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 130 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 87 lbs/sq ft or 422 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0,95
      - Longitudinal: 1,68
      - Overall: 1,00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

As usual belt 10 dg outward slope
Misc Weight:
Extra Compartmentation:200 tns
Extra Automatic Pumps:100 tns
Rc                                  :50 tns
Crew when not target:70 men

[Walter]

...
...
... so you're going to build a ship which you plan to sink as a target... You're better off donating those warship materials to Japan. :D

[miketr]

http://german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/misc/hessen/history.html

[ledeper]

Well,maybe Japan has a obsolete battleship for sale CHEAPLY :D ;D

[Walter]

Well, I got plenty, but they're anything but cheap...

[Kaiser Kirk]

... so you're going to build a ship which you plan to sink as a target... You're better off donating those warship materials to Japan. :D

Somewhere I have a SS for a target vessel, but I was going to try for a smaller and cheaper ship.
I'd really consider the cost/benifit of just refitting something very old and see if' it's good enough and cheaper.

[Carthaginian]

A target ship must be the most heavily armored ship you can imagine.
Most were old battleships that had concrete and extra metal armor added.

[ctwaterman]

Ive been trying to buy an Old BB for a reasonable rate for a while.... but well they dont go for reasonable rates anymore...

Charles

[Kaiser Kirk]

Well, what I was looking at was much much slower, but also smaller and so darn hard to hit at half the cost.  There was also a 3100 ton version with less armor, since Bavaria doesn't field capital ship guns at this time.

Displacement:
   5,081 t light; 5,186 t standard; 5,218 t normal; 5,244 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   196.85 ft / 196.85 ft x 75.46 ft (Bulges 85.30 ft) x 16.73 ft (normal load)
   60.00 m / 60.00 m x 23.00 m (Bulges 26.00 m)  x 5.10 m

Armament:
      1 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns in single mounts, 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1912 Model
     Breech loading gun in open barbette
     on centreline aft
   Weight of broadside 13 lbs / 6 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 0

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   15.7" / 400 mm   147.64 ft / 45.00 m   13.12 ft / 4.00 m
   Ends:   7.87" / 200 mm     45.93 ft / 14.00 m   13.12 ft / 4.00 m
     3.28 ft / 1.00 m Unarmoured ends
   Upper:   7.87" / 200 mm   127.95 ft / 39.00 m   8.01 ft / 2.44 m
     Main Belt covers 115 % of normal length

   - Torpedo Bulkhead and Bulges:
      1.97" / 50 mm   127.95 ft / 39.00 m   16.37 ft / 4.99 m

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:         -            -         15.7" / 400 mm

   - Armour deck: 7.87" / 200 mm, Conning tower: 15.75" / 400 mm

Machinery:
   Diesel Internal combustion generators,
   Electric motors, 2 shafts, 490 shp / 365 Kw = 8.00 kts
   Range 400nm at 6.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 58 tons

Complement:
   306 - 399

Cost:
   £0.182 million / $0.728 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 2 tons, 0.0 %
   Armour: 3,915 tons, 75.0 %
      - Belts: 1,952 tons, 37.4 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 153 tons, 2.9 %
      - Armament: 50 tons, 1.0 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,658 tons, 31.8 %
      - Conning Tower: 102 tons, 2.0 %
   Machinery: 20 tons, 0.4 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,145 tons, 21.9 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 137 tons, 2.6 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     171,302 lbs / 77,701 Kg = 13,307.9 x 3.0 " / 75 mm shells or 239.4 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.48
   Metacentric height 6.4 ft / 2.0 m
   Roll period: 14.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 100 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.650
   Length to Beam Ratio: 2.31 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 14.03 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 34 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): -12.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: -6.56 ft / -2.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      14.57 ft / 4.44 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   14.57 ft / 4.44 m
      - Mid (50 %):      14.57 ft / 4.44 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   14.57 ft / 4.44 m
      - Stern:      14.57 ft / 4.44 m
      - Average freeboard:   14.57 ft / 4.44 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 4.8 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 103.2 %
   Waterplane Area: 11,379 Square feet or 1,057 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 132 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 76 lbs/sq ft or 372 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.86
      - Longitudinal: 4.28
      - Overall: 1.01
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

This is designed to be an armored raft for target practice.
While generally towed, there is provision for a crew.
A small, heavily armored conning tower allows a pilot to operate the vessel.
The 75mm gun is not actually mounted, it's point was to allow the barbette to be simmed to serve as an armored communications tower and transit route.

The upper belt is really only 150mm, with an interior 50mm armored bulkhead.
The upper belt covers from freeboard to the main belt.

The main belt has a similar arrangement, being 350mm with an interior 50mm bulkhead, which forms the top of the TDS. 
The main belt is full thickness from +2m above water to -1m below WL. Afterwards it tapers for the next 1.75m.

The TDS comprises the outer hull blister, to allow venting outside the main belt. This is loaded with dyed saltwater and is subdivided by a thin bulkhead into two regions.
Inboard of that, is the ships hull with two void compartments and then the 50mm TDS.

The Deck is 100mm at armor deck level (WL), 75mm at main deck level, and 25mm at freeboard.

The crew is generally expected to work below the armor deck. The conning tower, forward, and the barbette form the only entrance and exit routes.

[damocles]

Why not use a target sled?

[P3D]

Why not use a target sled?

Slower and much less fancy. A RC target ship would at least steam at realistic speeds, and can do maneuvers.

[damocles]

Why not use a target sled?

Slower and much less fancy. A RC target ship would at least steam at realistic speeds, and can do maneuvers.

Two good points I must say.

Let me make some arguments for the sled.
a. while you can proof guns and fire control against an old RC ship, you cannot mark for bullseye as you can against a wood slat billboard target on a catamaran pontoon float hull.
b. its easier to use sub-caliber shells to check shooting tables with sleds than with an RC ship. Its also cheaper to train that way.
c. You can make 50 tow line target sleds out of wood at < 1% the cost of the target ship. These same sleds can be towed behind destroyers at gunnery speeds of at least 20 knots.
d. If you blow up a target sled by accident, you don't stop training and wait for a new target ship six months later. Have the base carpentry ship whip up a new one out of spare logs and scrap iron. If they are any good, then it will be a week at most that your training is delayed.
e. You can use target sleds for bomb practice and live bomb tests. Same for  torpedo exercises and working out torpedo tactics.

Beats shooting and bombing a marked beach for score which is what the Dutch KM did for the longest time. No money.  :(  

So now we use sleds.    
 
 

[Kaiser Kirk]

Why not use a target sled?

In Bavaria's case we were considering a dedicated vessel mainly because we want shoot at something armored and get a better idea of potential battle damage and shell performance.  The fitting of both an "upper" and "lower" belt was intended to give a good idea of performance vs. different armors.  Armor is heavy enough no critical hits should occur, while the armor schemes are layered in the hope that any partial penetrations would be caught by the subsequent armor. We were rather presuming on having to do periodic repairs to replace damaged plates and brackets, fix sprung seams, etc.

Overall more expensive, but for a navy with no pratical experience, seen as potentially more useful than another light cruiser.

[damocles]

Why not use a target sled?

In Bavaria's case we were considering a dedicated vessel mainly because we want shoot at something armored and get a better idea of potential battle damage and shell performance.  The fitting of both an "upper" and "lower" belt was intended to give a good idea of performance vs. different armors.  Armor is heavy enough no critical hits should occur, while the armor schemes are layered in the hope that any partial penetrations would be caught by the subsequent armor. We were rather presuming on having to do periodic repairs to replace damaged plates and brackets, fix sprung seams, etc.

Overall more expensive, but for a navy with no practical experience, seen as potentially more useful than another light cruiser.

Are you an engineer, Kaiser? Because that makes such perfect sense. The Americans were curious to see if their 130 year's experience with steel warships had made their current weapon designs more valid than they were at the middle of the last century. They had not sunk a large modern warship in  sixty years. So they took one of their old giant carriers out, and parked it where it would become a fish reef and then they threw everything short of nuclear weapons they had at her. She took a very long time to die.

So......you found an expensive but very effective way to get to advanced protective schemes. My compliments. ;D

[Kaiser Kirk]

Hardly an engineer.  The USN's expenditure of ships as targets does influence the concept. I've considered just shooting up one of my old Baden-Baden small cruisers instead. However I think a target vessel would provide more information and value in the long run. Fitting it in the budget is another matter.  From this discussion I may toy with the concept a bit more to field something with more speed to allow manuevers.

It's more a matter that if I'm going to field a force, no matter how small, I'd like it to be reasonably competent. My ship designers are probably folks that had retired by 1906 when the Hapsburgs left.. or their apprentices. Which is my justification for my fielding casements :)  While information has been gleaned from the ESC/NL/RRC, there has been substantial evolution in guns, shells and armor in just the past game decade.